WHAT’S IN A NAME?
In my book, Fighting for Birds, I suggest that none of the four letters, and none of the four words, of RSPB is particularly appropriate for the modern all-wildlife conservation organisation that is the RSPB of today.
On the other hand, having an old-fashioned name may give the Society some gravitas and perhaps makes it stand out from other nature conservation organisations.
What do you think? And do you think the RSPB is just about birds or is it a wider conservation organisation? Should it stick closely to birds or not? Should it stick with the ‘Royal’ or not? I’d be interested in your views, and your polite comments below, and I have offered a few names for you to play with in a poll to start the discussion.
119 Comments
Trackbacks
- What's in a name? New Poll. | Mark Avery
- Fancy a new job? - Mark Avery
- Wednesday | Mark Avery
- What's in a name? Where is the movement? - Mark Avery
As a lifelong republican and largely opposed to the sports that the royals indulge themselves in its an easy choice. Mrs Windsor at least supports Songbird Survival, a front for the raptor haters, enough said. There is also the incident of Dersingham Bog to take into account.
Yes RSPB is involved in more than birds but birds should remain the key focus.
Paul – thanks. There’s a job to which you could apply apparently – see tomorrow’s blog…
I think the RSPB could change its name to a more Holistic name,this would highlight the growing concern for all of life and connectivity of ecosystems. The RSPB is increasingly highlighting this. By simply changing the B to stand for Biodiversity, The initials remain the same, but it would show a more emcompassing view point.
We all need to realise that all life is Interconnected.
Nature’s Voice sums up the overall mission of the organisation and would represent continuity as it is already included in the brand. Having biodiversity in the name and by implication having it as the sole objective could create conflicts of interest as there are some occasions where threatened species (especially insects) need specific and constant environments which are compromised by managing for a maximum range of species.
Richard – welcome, and many thanks for your comment.
As a confirmed word nerd, with a penchant for birds, I would say NO (NO, No and No) to biodiversity as a word intended to capture the popular imagination. (If you are so inclined, you can read more on this on my blogpost (http://wp.me/p1VwzU-9h) which bangs on about it.)
It seems to me that RSPB has been seriously edging itself towards being Nature’s Voice for some time. Strikes me as a tad presumptuous. More importantly, the heart and soul of the RSPB, including I imagine a considerable chunk of the membership, seems to be in birds although some other taxa do now get a mention that they wouldn’t have done 20 years ago.
If change is coming (and I would like to think it is) it would be good to reflect a bigger picture of some sort. I would therefore go for Birdlife UK which resonates with the importance of the international dimension in protecting birds and emphasises that we on one small (albeit terribly important in migrating bird terms at least) island cannot do it all alone and this has to be a global effort. It is also not new, but part of something contemporary.
And lo! we have also in a very British way skirted around any awkward R-related discussions.
Susan – great comment, thank you.
I think they should stick with RSPB (it has history, power and many already know what it means), but they should change the brand to that of all nature; similar to what is already happening (A million voices for nature, stepping up for nature, saving nature, etc). There are two problems I can see though.
1. Real birdy people might think this means birds are now getting a smaller slice of the pie, less funding, less effort, etc.
The RSPB has to make it clear that a re-brand would only highlight the work that is already going on. It is not a move away from birds, just a step to highlight all aspects of nature on RSPB reserves.
2. That just because the brand would say something like “we are more than just birds” birds should not ALWAYS come second to other nature.
Yes it is good to push the all nature agenda, but sometimes birds are just a bigger draw than anything else. I cant imagine arriving at several east coast RSPB reserves and getting told of bees and butterflies before I hear about what’s out on the wader scrape, to do so would annoy the majority of their visitors. The balance needs to be right and reserves need to decide when to push birds and when to push everything else. These decision need making at the reserve level though and the re-brand is best done by face to face interactions as well.
So no name change for me. However, the re-brand is needed. The work the RSPB does is not reflected in people’s opinions of the organisation. Many still see it as an organisation for middle aged, middle class men, wearing wax jackets, sat in hides, not talking, taking notes, and ignoring everything else in nature to admire the plumage of the latest rarity for 10 seconds before going to the tick. That obviously isn’t what the RSPB is like and that image needs to change if they are to attract more visitors and members, bringing in more revenue to help more wildlife; which surely has to be the ultimate goal.
Adam – very good comment, thank you
It would be dangerous to ignore international perception of the British Royal’s and any issues surrounding their entrenched traditional pro hunting stance should be a debate kept firmly within the boundaries of the UK, but certainly continue. No other world leader, which Prince Charles is seen as by many other populations, has been so stoic in their support of progression towards true sustainability – a fact often ignored in the UK itself (for example the film ‘harmony’ was released and widely seen in the US as it was on mainstream TV, well in advance of the somewhat mute UK release).
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
Everyone knows what RSPB means and what it does.
A million voices for nature.
SteveRoeBatMan – welcome and thank you.
‘Nature’s Voice’ always makes me think of those epic movies with Charlton Heston as ‘The Voice of God’. In the RSPB context it is a bit silly.
New management culture often succumbs to the temptation of change for its own sake. To show that the new bloke in charge is actually doing something (it is often a bloke). The same thing often happens when someone buys a house and garden – they rush in and chop down the best trees, cover the lawn with decking or paint the windows purple, just to show they are different from the previous owner.
I think this is what is happening with the RSPB. There is no good reason for changing the name. The conservation ethic has always been the same – much wider than birds, but with birds the main public focus.
You need to look at the conservation movement like an ecosystem: every organisation has its niche, where it does its own job best. The key to managing these organisations (and I’ve been involved with a few locally) is to define your niche and stick to it. Just like a business in fact.
I see the RSPBs niche – what it does best – as in buying reserves and managing them both for wildlife and for education. There are also other important niches in bird protection, wider education and overseas, but I feel reserves are the RSPBs keystone without which all the rest falls apart.
Sadly there is evidence that the organisation has taken its eye off the ball recently. Locally there has been a chance to buy a huge and excellent bird reserve with great potential. The RSPB turned it down, pleading a lack of money. If that is the case, they are spending way too much on navel-gazing, management and makeovers, and not enough on their core purpose.
They need to stop endlessly wondering what to call themselves and get on with what they are best at: bird & wildlife reserves.
Jamie – well I’m not sure that the RSPB is endlessly wondering what to call themselves. The RSPB has evolved over time and now nature reserves form a smaller part of a much larger whole than it once did. Are you a member? If so, then why not get in touch with the RSPB and tell them what you think? And if you aren’t a member -then you should be!
I vote for no change – mainly thinking of the million members who mostly, I suspect, join a bird organisation more than a biodiversity one. Since the membership provide a very large part of the RSPB’s income and nearly as large a part of its political clout that does rather trump things. Which doesn’t mean that in its work, including in education/engaging people, it shouldn’t continue to stress biodiversity and how everything hangs together.
Incidentally, taking your punning question rather pedantically, there is surely now little meaning inside (underlined) the name RSPB. Apart from the copyright bit at the bottom of every page, I couldn’t find the full-out version of the name anywhere on the website (though no doubt it is there somewhere.) Which pretty much reflects the strength of the “brand” – to most people the RSPB is just that with no especial concerns about the acronymic (is that a word?) meaning.
Alan – hi! But yours is an argument , perhaps, for not changing what the RSPB is. I think the RSPB has changed, and I for one am glad it has, so should the name catch up or be left behind?
Also, you do have to factor in how many existing members become upset by any change and how many potential members suddenly become more receptive. i suspect none of us knows the answer to that – it requires proper research to have a clue.
No need to change, if their excellent work involves coincidentally assisting biodiversity (which it invariably does) then so be it. It’s a big brand name you can trust which can’t be said about many at the moment, why change it?
Dale – welcome and thank you for your well-made point.
Hi Mark. Just to say that I wouldn’t want to be arguing for stasis. I agree the RSPB has changed – in a good direction – and I would support it moving further in that same direction. But (recognising your second point) it does have to carry it’s membership with it.
I tried to think of some examples of organisations that changed their name to their acronym. BP did so but then Obama called them British Petroleum anyway when he wanted to make a point. ICI didn’t ever formally change their name after “Imperial” presumably became a liability, but look what happened to them.
Alan – yes, interesting points. Any organisation has to carry a membership with it, but not necessarily the one it has – new people will be just as nice as the existing people. My experience is that in debates or discussions of this type everyone seems to talk as though they know what ‘the members’ think whereas it is very rare that anyone has asked them? So I thought I would ask some people. And of course the answer does depend on the question and how it is asked.
It’s not the names of these organisations that is my main concern, its the number… If the RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and many others could see themselves fit to join forces much like the many cancer charities did a few years back, then the public would only have larger organisation to think of when wanting to donate, volunteer, or go to for advice. Personally I think it would benefit the UK a great deal to have one larger org especially with the focus now tending to be towards landscape scale projects. Just a thought and probably far to idealistic but worth mentioning and dreaming about…
David – if you are a member then you can choose whether to use your power and influence. And I suspect you would enjoy Chapters 15 and 16 of Fighting for Birds. Thank you.
Mark thank you, Ive been meaning to pick up a copy… I’ll head over to amazon now and see if I can get one before my holiday
David – be quick – two left.
Hi,
The name the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (founded in 1889) does not seem to fully reflect the whole working diversity of the RSPB in modern 2012. As you commented; the the RSPB is already moving strongly in to other areas of wildlife and landscape scale conservation etc.
Having an old more fashioned name seems to give the organisation weight with a certain socio-economic class and age. Mainly middle-class older middle age people, from what I can tell from their membership research presentation I listened to. The name (‘birds’ element) may not be that catchy to younger generations, which seem to be lacking in RSPB membership figures. WWF was stated to be doing better in these terms, with nice glossy wildlife media campaigns.
I suspect changing its long standing name will not go down too well with the older elements of the ‘wooly-hat brigade’, but surely evolution will need to take place for the younger generations in the future.
PS. not sure about the name in relation to the farming community.
Matt – many thanks.
I have read the comments so far with great interest. A real conundrum. I suspect the mood is right to begin talking of a rebranding exercise. In response to Matt’s query on views of farming community I know that a number of farmers and land managers I have encountered have very polarised opinions about what the RSPB stands for, though I would not like to bet that such people could change their view overnight because of a new name, but agree with the comments about capturing a new audience. a million members there may be but we must remember that there is always a constant turnover and a constant impetus to find new members.
Tim – welcome and many thanks.
Birdlife UK would work for me. Other birdlife partners have done the same and it really works. I think they stay as RSPB they should move away from the royal family and be the radical society for the protection of birds!
Hi Elwyn. Birdlife UK works for me too. But like your ‘radical’ idea!
Interesting comment from S Jakeman, all life is interconnected. When are we going to have a mainstream media (9 O’clock slot) debate around this. I can’t help thinking a “million voices for nature” is about 1.9 billion too few! Charles Clover in the Sunday Times yesterday (hidden away on p23) doesn’t think we’re going to make it with regard to Anthropological Global Warming – shouldn’t that have been on the front page instead of Lance Armstrong? How about stirring up a “Bob Geldof” type to organise a Live Aid for the planet?
PDavis – welcome and many thanks.
If you want to see a relevant example of a re-branding exercise look at the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV) . Now it is called The Conservation Volunteers (TCV). I’m not so sure this really works, but I think the fact that I’m so used to the original brand has a lot to do with it.
It’s like when an actor changes in your favourite soap. To start with you hate it and it seems all wrong, but after a while you don’t even notice.
It will be exactly the same for RSPB. At this moment I don’t totally see the need, but once it has happened I’m sure it will all work out fine.
Out of those options I voted for Bird Life UK.
Nicholas – thank you for making some good points.
I am a longtime member of the RSPB. I joined not because I’m into birds – I like them (a lot) but I’m more of a plants and inverts person – but because I think they are a great campaigning organisation who achieve a lot for nature. I tend to think that a name is less important than what an organisation does in terms of how it comes across to the public, but then I’m not a branding expert, and I get the point about the middle-class associations – I’d go for Birdlife UK, if push came to shove. One important thing I think would really bring the objectives of any nature organisation, such as the RSPB, into even higher profile with more segments of society, is to more visibly ‘join ranks’ (visibly is important – I’m sure it happens behind the scenes) on the bigger issues e.g.. third runways at airport ‘x’, or political shortcuts winning over proper conservation science (badger TB is only one example of many). We don’t want a ‘super-conservation’ organisation – people are naturally suspicious of very large powerful bodies – but visibly working together would deliver some real clout and get more people aware of the organisation and the issues faced, if only by exposing members of different conservation organisations directly to each others’ challenges. Which is partly what rebranding is about, I think!
I think I am going to be pointed to the later chapters of ‘Fighting for Birds’ – I’m on Chapter 6, so I’m getting there! Great and thought-provoking read.
Amanda – I’m so glad you are enjoying fighting for Birds and you will need to get to chapters 15 and 16 for more thoughts on this subject. But thank you very much for yours here.
May be it is not the name that needs changing but several of the staff especially at the top. The fact that they spend so much money on trying to recruit new members tells you that some thing is wrong. What are we – 65 million on a small island and we still have a majority – 64 million that do not want to join. Forcing them does not work. You have to gain confidence. And this shower will never do it!
John, That argument doesnt make sense to me. Membership of political parties, various religious groups, National Trust, Songbird Survival, Nectar Cards ad infinitum all only exist as a small proportion of the population. Even the voting turnout is often a minority of those that could. That doesn’t mean that everyone else is against these organisations or doesnt support the principle of what they are trying to achieve. It is probably given a sociological technical term like ‘inertia’.
1. The acronym RSPB is so wel-known that it would be wrong and counter-productive to change it.
2. If any change then ‘Biodiversity’ for ‘Birds’. But we are all in it primarily for the birds so this must remain first priority – all else will follow.
3. Forget Birdlife – too anonymous
4. Dump the Hannover-Saxe-Coburgs aka Windsors. They are all bloodthirsty hunters anyway and are only interested in preserving wildlife to kill it. See also cousin x-times removed Juan Carlos.
David – welcome and many thanks.
As a devout republican I would prefer the dropping of the link. And for tidiness, BirdLife makes sense, what with Birdlife International, heavily subsidised by the RSPB, and Buglife, Plantlife, Froglife etc already there.
But there is a very good case to keeping birds, protection and society in the name. That’s what it was founded as, and I seen no reason for deviating. Look what happened when the International Union for the Protection of Nature did just that…..
In fact why not change the Royal for British — and channel all the funds for overseas conservation into Birdlife International?
John – welcome and thank you for your comment.
Unless the RSPB wakes up soon and smells the pesticides, they will have to change their name as there will be no birds left to protect. We need an immediate ban on neonicotinoids and we need the RSPB to put their weight behind a ban, for the sake of the birds, the bees and biodiversity.
Phil – that’s interesting, thank you.
I’m inclined to agree with Phil Chandler as clearly not enough is being done to protect our birds from pesticides, if it was then their numbers would be picking up, not still diminishing at a great rate. If the RSPB aren’t fighting to protect our birds in every way possible then no amount of name changing will help the birds or the RSPB in getting more members aboard.
I also can’t help thinking that John Miles has a very valid point: “May be it is not the name that needs changing but several of the staff especially at the top.”
Time for a great deal of rethinking to be done in every area!
Sue – welcome and thank you for your view
I agree with you re pesticides- I also wonder whether modern muck spreading- ie using caravan park waste etc etc ( do they do that?) can also be responsible- The antibiotics and drugs animals recieve – one does not see masses of beetles or different insects in cow pats anymore!
Buglife’s (or should that be the Royal Society for the Protection of Bugs) response to yesterday’s feeble Government report on recent neonicotinoid research is here http://www.buglife.org.uk/News/Government+report+on+pesticides+slated
The Government response scrabbles about in a desperate fashion to find reasons to sideline scientific evidence that these nerve agents are one of the causes of the current declines in pollinator populations.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2012/09/18/pb13818-pesticides-bees/
Pollination by insects is worth £17 billion/yr to EU agriculture. A reduction in pollinator populations of just 5% will cost agriculture more than the £0.8 billion economic benefit of using neonicotinoids that is claimed by the pesticide companies.
The most worrying scientific paper found an 85% reduction in the number of queens produced by bumblebee nests that had been fed, for just two weeks, with field realistic levels of neonicotinoids. The strongest criticism that Defra makes of the study is that “It may be significant that the control bees consumed nectar and pollen whereas the treatment bees were given a different diet of treated pollen and sugar water.”. It may be significant, but it is would be fanciful to think that this difference explained the 85% reduction in breeding success; it is much more probable that it was the insecticide, not the water.
Another paper showing that bees are killed by dust released when neonicotinoid treated seeds are planted is excluded from the main body of the report and apparently neutralised in an appendix by the statement that “This route of exposure will be considered as part of the new EU guidance document”. This can hardly be considered to be a solution!
To counter that scientific evidence of damage and impairment to honeybees in published papers Defra refers to unpublished and unavailable honeybees studies undertaken by pesticide companies (not bumblebee studies – such studies do not exist for non-honeybee pollinators). This use of these unpublished regulatory studies is rather undermined by the statement in the report from the Government’s Advisory Committee on Pesticides that “the regulatory studies were not designed with detailed statistical analysis in mind, and their power to detect statistically significant changes is not established”.
Wild bees have annual lifecycles and small reductions in breeding success could trigger population declines, the Defra report presents no evidence that neonicotinoid insecticides are not killing, disabling and impairing wild bees, thereby contributing to their disappearance from the countryside.
The Defra report does not dismiss the findings of several key implicating papers and acknowledges that further research is required to establish if neonicotinoids are destroying populations of solitary bees and bumblebees. This is an admission that the environmental safety of these toxins has not been established. In which case, and in line with existing legislative requirements, Neonicotinoids should be banned until there is convincing evidence that they are not destroying bumblebees, solitary bees, butterflies, moths and other pollinators.
Defra wants to establish the ‘normal’ level of nerve agent insecticides in bees – the answer is none!
Please remember to join Buglife if you have not already done so.
Hi Mark,
I am not what you would call a bird watcher or particularly a bird enthusiast, more that I am very much a nature enthusiast. I love the biology and ecology of birds as much as thier obvious beauty and am as thrilled when I see a bird in a natural environment as I am when I see something from another taxononomic group. Going to a see a gannet colony would probably be mostly about the gannets (hopefully with a few other bird species and marine mammals thown!), and that is wonderful but a visit to a wetlands reserve would be just as much about the grass snake as it is about the great-crested grebe. So, why would I become a member of the RSPB?
Well, I did because I understand that you cannot conserve a population of a bird species without conserving its’ habitat and that habit will, if healthy, support a whole range of other species, including other aves, plants, fungi, mammals and invertebrates etc. I knew that the RSPB took a holistic view of nature conservation although its’ roots were all about the birds. Bird enthusiasts must form a huge part of the RSPB membership however and so they shouldn’t be push away in favour of the word “biodiversity” when most probably understand that this all-encompassing word is important in bird conservation anyway.
Here’s an example of an organisation that has fiddled with its’ name… WWF.
Originally the World Wildlife Fund, everyone got the meaning and recognised the panda designed by Sir Peter Scott. In 1986 they decided they needed to be more inclusive and so changed the name to the World Wide Fund for Nature but just kept the original accronym of WWF… In 2000 they decided that they didn’t want to be called the World Wide Fund for Nature and have reverted to just being called WWF, which does not stand for anything except what people percieve it to be, with the tag-line, ‘For a living planet’… See: http://wales.wwf.org.uk/wwf_articles.cfm?unewsid=1675
This seems to have worked for them, so why not try something similar for the RSPB?
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and nature. Keep the accronym but tag on nature or just use the accronym with the current Tag-line “Nature’s Voice”… It works for me!
Cheers, Jason
PS… Keeping the R is fine with me… I think it adds gravitas on the world stage and whilst I do not want to take part in countryside pursuits such as field sports, (I agree mostly with your views in ‘Fighting For Birds’) I do think that the royal family does have a firm belief in the need for wider conservation and thier support of conservation efforts is invaluable.
Jason – thank you for a great comment.
Focussing on birds was always a bit of a luxury in terms of the wider environment and the RSPB has moved on very effectively. Is the next development to combine with the Wildlife Trusts in a completely new and independent body? The national concerns of the RSPB (down to SSSI level, say) could take precedence still, but the finer-grain local action through the Wildlife Trusts could do with more people and funding to increase effectiveness of biodiversity action and the spread of expertise.
There’s more need than ever for naturalists to link their recording/action directly to the plans of local authorities and such a body might be better placed to stimulate/validate that input.
Name changes are easy, it’s what does conservation now need that really begs some thought, not least following the recent grant cuts and knock-on impacts on revenue-based land management.
Roy – welcome and thank you for your comment. in mu book, Fighting for Birds, I assess the chances of an RSP/Wildlife Trusts merger and decide it won’t happen. There are other options though.
If the organisation were starting out tomorrow – even with exactly the same remit and wishing to recruit exactly the same membership – I’m sure RSPB would choose a different name (my guess is none of the existing words would be used!), but that’s a different scenario.
Changing the name of a well-established brand is undoubtedly a very different matter. It would be interesting to get the view of advertising agencies, but I suspect there’s little benefit to minor name changes. And let’s leave aside the expense of changing signage, printed materials etc, the time spent debating it (management board agonising over it, most other staff discussing it to a greater or lesser degree); and any fallout from the debate it will spark among the membership (given, I suspect, most people’s default setting is not in favour of change).
A change to BirdLife, to incorporate Biodiversity etc is (in the nicest sense) still a pretty geeky name that has resonance only for a niche audience. Those who love birds and/or care about the environment more widely will be members of RSPB (or not) based on an understanding of what it already does. Within that potential membership, I suspect there are relatively few who have not heard of RSPB or know what it does. I’d be surprised if changing (or not changing) the name will make any real difference to being able recruit from within that pool, or to influencing Government or others.
Most of the public have little or no engagement with environmental issues, and (at the risk of veering into a much bigger topic), the need to address that is the key challenge for conservation/environment organisations. That step-change is essential if those organisations are going to achieve their aims within the next 30-50 years and I’d like to think that, within the next two decades, most will have a department (employing social scientists and their ilk) that really understands how to engage with and influence people. (Bear with, bear with…)
At that point, a name that engages with people beyond the ‘nature-sympathetic’ segment of the population will, I’m sure, be essential. I think one large organisation would then be a good thing and something along the lines of Nature’s Voice probably has exactly the popular appeal – both simplicity and clever meaning – that is needed. But I’d save that name for when the organisation really does have the ambition and the tools to embrace and deliver those much broader intentions.
Indeed, it makes you wonder if any quandary over name change reflects internal wrangling that an organisation is not achieving all it should be – and that the real need is a step-change in approach, rather than the new lick of paint. If your next question is ‘What happens when an organisation evolves gradually?’ then, er, I don’t know! But despite great strides and a much broader remit, I don’t think RSPB (or any conservation NGO) is there yet – the conservation movement has a long way to go to break beyond its core audience.
Peter – fantastic comment. Thank you very much.
Peter, “if any quandary over name change reflects internal wrangling that an organisation is not achieving all it should be”. I am not sure this is actually the case, the only issue about name change has been raised by Mark and I don’t think it comes from inside the organisation.
People have raised the issue of using letters only (e.g. WWF). RSPB is well known but changing might bring unseen problems. I sometimes get caught out when I see something as coming from WWT (Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust) or I see something as coming from WWT (Wiltshire Wildlife Trust).
Bob – that’s your 100th comment here (but who’s counting?). Thank you and keep them coming.
Do I get a present for that. Its OK, signing the book was a present in its own right. Thank you for the opportunity (101)
Definitely in favour of dropping the royal, in fact in favour of dropping the royals altogether but that’s another topic! I’m in favour of keeping birds in the title as although I agree, that birds cannot be treated in isolation from other flora and fauna and from the environment in general, people will always have their special interests, be they birds or butterflies and it is important to cater for those preferences whilst maintaining a holistic approach. One thing that always disturbs me is that as birds are more enlightened than their human counterparts and know no national boundaries, organisations are preoccupied by theirs, at least on the surface, perhaps for obvious reasons. I know that international conservation bodies do work together e.g. Bird Life International but I would like a more global approach to conservation and to the presentation of conservation/ornithological issues, even if this just extends to the isles in which we life. For instance, how often, do we only talk about the UK as if “our” wildlife stopped at the Irish border and vice versa. I know that the RSPB and Birdwatch Ireland work together but we need a more integrated approach within these islands, across Europe and indeed globally.
Peter – great comment, thank you for it.
Another vote from me for keeping the name unchanged. The RSPB brand is very strong.
One potential problem with using Birdlife UK or Biodiversity UK is that post-2014 there is a possibility (perhaps still quite a remote possibility) that half of the RSPB’s reserve area and a modest chunk of its membership might not be in the UK any more!
Paul – good point, and one which is touched upon in Chapter 15 of Fighting for Birds. Thank you for your comment.
I’ll look forward to getting to Chapter 15. Fighting for Birds is on my Christmas list, but having read the first few chapters on the free Kindle preview, I may have to shell out £8.04 myself before then!
Paul – I do hope you do…
Going for a name with UK in it could shorten its shelf life a bit.
I am not sure that a name change is the most important issue here, and for that reason I have voted for no change, for fear that a change could do more harm than good. The more important issue (and one that you tackle in Chapter 16 of Fighting For Birds) is the degree to which like minded organisations can work together (and share resources) for the good of Nature as a whole. What we need is a Coalition (not a popular word I know!) for Biodiversity. No organisation can be all things to everyone.
Andrew – I’m glad you got to Chapter 16 (or did you start at the back – chapter 17?).
As a brand the RSPB is well known. It would be a mistake to rename it as something that broke a long established association. If you want to attract new members it’s not the name that matters, it is what you do to help protect our birds.
Am dismayed at the venom aimed at the a Royal family in this debate.
Whatever you may think on an international stage Prince Charles has had the courage to speak out about a number of environmental issues and HM the Queen has donated to support the RSPB, what I would imaging is not an insubstantial sum. Perhaps if you hate the Royal association so much you should decline her future donations and return funds to her.
Mike – welcome and thank you for your views. I am unaware of HM the Queen donating any money to the RSPB but then it would be a private matter (except that clearly it wasn’t when it came to her donating to Songbird Survival – see today’s blog). Thank you again for your comment.
An interesting debate, before I started working at the RSPB I didn’t realise quite how much other biodiversity work the organisation undertook.
Rebrands rarely work well, the RSPB is so well known and I fear many members could drift away if too much of a change happened (ie Natures Voice). However keeping the initials and changing the B to Biodiversity could be an excellent way forward as it would more reflect the organisation and also allow those that wanted to to, effectively, keep referring to it as they always have and keep the B as Birds in their minds.
Hope you are well!
Colin
Colin – thank you and I hope you are well too!
You want a different organisation that reflects your views? Then found that organisation. Don’t dilute the powerful brand name of the RSPB with fluffy non-words and buzz phrases.
Martin – thank you. Not sure who ‘you’ is but it isn’t me.
I’ve been a member of RSPB since I was 18, paid for out of my university grant (yes, the good old days). Even then, it was the idea that RSPB reserves were good for all kinds of nature/plants/animals/environment that attracted me. The name didn’t put me off then, and I don’t see why it should now. It is well known and well supported.
Liz – good for you! Thank you for helping to pay my salary for over 25 years. And I am similar to you. But there are people who think that you and I are bearded strange men twitching away after rare birds. Really – there are! You know the reality but they have a different impression.
Referring to Colin’s post. Changing the meaning of the “B” in RSPB from Birds to Biodiversity completely alters the image of the brand.
The RSPB in losing that special link to birds will become yet another nebulous wildlife / environmental / green charity.
If the core aim of the RSPB is to work to preserve birds, then to remove the word “birds” from the brand name would be a big mistake.
Some may want to update & forget older people who joined because they love birds. It would also be a mistake to alienate them. Wills can be re written!
The RSPB is a well known brand which can be all inclusive as far as generations are concerned. Leave well alone we say ….
Interesting blog, Mark.
I agree with a number of previous comments regarding the difficulties (and cost) for a well-known charity to change its name. The brand of the RSPB is more than what the letters may or may not mean and the move towards stepping up for nature etc. has been effective, in my opinion. After all, actions speak louder than words.
Stuart – welcome and thank you for your comment.
Remove the R keep the SPB.
John – welcome and thank you.
I feel RSPB is so well known, the name should be retained. Other, dare I say less well known organisations, have changed and it seems to have worked for them.
For example; ILPH – the International League for the Protection of Horses became World Horse Welfare.
and; NCDL – the National Canine Defence League became Dogs Trust.
Both, I think, much better names.
So, I’m sorry to contradict myself but RSPB is so massive and well known in it”s field (no pun intended) that, rather like maybe RSPCA, the name should be kept.
Phil – thanks.
Rule number 1 in life and business – never change a winning team? Many have tried it and come to grief. Just ask any Premiership football manager, or ask yourself why the ‘World Wide Fund for Nature’ is still invariably referred to as the ‘World Wildlife Fund, or the ‘Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust’ is still called the ‘Wildfowl Trust’ by most people’! In my own county the ‘sexily’-titled ‘Lake District Naturalist’s Trust’ changed it’s name to ‘The Cumbria Trust for Nature Conservation’ with disastrous results. It was hastily changed to ‘Cumbria Wildlife Trust’ and all is now well!!! One million members surely means the so called ‘outdated’ RSPB brand has worked well for decades and still works well as it is, and like it or lump it, birds ‘sell’, and our self-styled ‘greenest government ever” listens to that number of members (there are a lot of voters in there!). If people don’t by now realise that you can only save a bird by saving its food by saving its habitat (i.e. ‘biodiversity’) without us ramming it down their throats, then there’s little hope for the future of this planet. The protection of our precious biodiversity is of course fundamental to all conservation, but if an organisation like the RSPB wants to lose members just let it change the word ‘birds’ to ‘biodiversity’ and watch the exodus. I have spent the past 47 years of my life trying to save the world’s owls by trying to protect their habitats (for ‘habitas’ again read ‘biodiversity’), so whenever I interviewed a prospective employee my first question was always “can you explain what the word biodiversity means” – and if I had a pound for every dumbstruck silence and baffled look which greeted my request, I would be a millionaire by now! Almost everybody know what the RSPB is and does (and any bird afficionado already knows that it is Birdlife International’s UK representative, and it matters not one jot that the majority of its members (like me) are ‘silverbacks’. The fact is they are members, and more members mean more power to make the powers that be listen (I only wish the World Owl Trust had as many). And by the way, I would hazard a guess that most RSPB (and Wildlife Trust) members are indeed ‘silverbacks’ who initially joined because of their devotion to the birds in their own garden which ultmately led them to take in the loss of the ‘wider countryside’ AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. So come on younger bloggers, don’t denigrate us, turn your ire on the younger generations who say in droves, “I don’t care”!
By the way Mark, what effect has the change of name from the ‘Young Ornithologists’ Club’ to ‘RSPB Wildlife Exolorers’ had? Could be this one will prove me wrong – it’s a ‘goodie’ – but what I wonder, would happen if they left off the RSPB bit???
Tony – great comment, many thanks.
Keep the name as it is – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
I fully respect the RSPB’s efforts and needs to be concerned about wider issues than “just birds”, and after volunteering for the charity for a number of years I an proud that we are conserving biodiversity and wildlife as a whole, too. However, we do already have organisations which encompass this in the UK in their names (Wildlife Trusts, for example). I think we should stick with the name RSPB – it is recongnisable enough to be familiar to people outside of the conservation world, but it does no harm in clarifying it’s meaning to those who aren’t familiar with it (I often find this provokes a discussion on the charity and what it stands for. I always include nature as a whole in this discussion, but I explain that the charity originated through protecting mainly bird species.
Jo – many thanks.
So many questions tied up in such a small bunch of words.
From a branding point of view – no – RSPB is one of the most readily recognised brands out there in the bird/wildlife sector so leave it be.
Royal – glorious ignominy of the Royals being attached to the charity whilst happily blasting poor pheasants etc out of the sky on a regular basis….and having been supporters of hunting.
Most organisations would if they were starting from scratch today choose a different name to the one they started out with as most organisations evolve over the years. Their aims and their personnel change regularly with new priorities and new desires to head off down different paths pretty constantly so on balance, stick with what they have unless they can form an umbrella organisation that covers the wider aspects of their work with the RSPB as the bird dedicated organistion under that umbrella. That way they don’t upset the million plus older people who probably hate change more than anyone….
Steve
Very tricky, as “RSPB” is so well-known. I personally would drop all Royal connections like a hot coal, given their links with the shooting industry and all that implies. Charles, though, does seem genuine in his support for biodiversity – but do any of the others get it, even the next generation? Would members leave in droves if there were a change? “Nature’s Voice” might risk confusion with WWF. And perhaps the importance of birdwatching as a hobby shouldn’t be underestimated – it is a hugely popular hobby and birders are a set who find a home in the RSPB – that is a lot of people to lose if they felt that they were no longer catered for. “Biodiversity” sadly is never going to catch the public imagination, or understanding. But “wildlife” and “nature” – and “birds” – do. How about dropping the royals, come out fighting, and call it “Fighting for Birds”?!
Jane – I like the cut of your jib! But even without the witty ending, thank you for your comment.
Everybody knows that Coca Cola don’t just do Coca Cola anymore but they keep thier name none the less. Brand is so important and the RSPB is so well known. Just need to work harder on getting peeps to understand the ‘All Nature’ bit is all!
Jen – welcome and thank you for your comment. yes, working harder at getting the message across is always a good idea.
It’s a question I been asking myself for a while mark. When I talk to the public in my role as a volunteer for the RSPB people assume that we just about birds. They are amazed by fact that we cover all wildlife. I think it would be benifiti
al to change the name but at the same time it would be difficult to unless a lot was spent on publicity. But then people would think it a huge waste of money to change name and all that it entails. And it may alienate some of long standing members.
Don’t change the name is my vote, when charities change their names there is a small period of time when donations drop off as it takes people time to realise the change, people think th organization has changed it roles etc.
On a “off topic” moment I just heard on the ITN news (4th SEPT 2012) ZAC GOLDSMITHH being described as a TORY ENVIROMENTALIST…..REALLY!!!!! It was in reference to the third runway at Heathrow.
Douglas thank you. I think that Zac is well named as a Tory environmentalist – his credentials are very good.
i think they could alter the name to read “SPWE” Society for the Protection of Wildlife and the Environment”
The marketing of SPWE … pronounced “spew” would be a challenge!!
The society would also appear to have lost it’s core aim which has been the protection of birds.
Jackie – thank you and welcome.
Biodiversity is a great ecological word but poxy when it comes to the public understanding what it means. In my view it would be daft to change. The purpose of the RSPB is to protect birds, the membership understands that to do that it needs to promote biodiversity, that has allowed the brand creep which has taken place. To formalise that via a name change would generate a backlash in terms of unrenewed memberships. As for the Royal bit, while we still have a monarch keep it. I’m a republican and would do away with the monarchy when the Queen dies but in our current society if it has any use at all keep it. If doing away with it would change the RSPB into a campaigning organisation against shooting then it might be a good thing but I’m not yet convinced that the pros of banning releasing pheasants and shooting grouse would be outweighed by the cons of having landowners lose their vested interest in maintaining some wildlife friendly habitat as a side effect of promoting their shooting interests.
I’d be interested in any feedback on how the pheasant release ban in Netherlands has affected bird populations there.
“It does more than it says on the tin…”
So many comments, so many thoughts. Where to start?
I do think a lot of the comments are more about the RSPB than about what birds, wildlife, nature really needs. Followers of your blog, Mark, are close to this issue. They understand the threats to biodiversity and see the RSPB for what it is and its place in the nature conservation sector.
The challenge for the nature conservation sector and, therefore, for the RSPB is how to reach people who don’t think about this stuff very much. People who do appreciate the outcomes of the work of organisations like the RSPB but never give it moments thought.
How does the RSPB play a leading role in driving nature conservation to the top of peoples’ mind and the political agenda? Birds, wildlife, nature, the environment – they’re all peripheral issues in peoples lives. So many comments here suggest that everyone knows what the RSPB is all about or that people are as informed and active as the people who are making the comments are. That is simply not true. To millions, the RSPB is irrelevant or invisible at best and boring and for ‘slightly odd’ people at worst. This is a brand issue and the name is a central part of brand.
So here’s the challenge. Don’t think about the name in terms of what would suit the RSPB or whether the R or the B is important. Think broader. Think about how the RSPB can make itself, its cause and its work relevant to the millions of people that birds, wildlife, nature and humans, need for future survival. The RSPB needs to be bold and brave to address the massive challenges faced by the natural world. What does nature need the RSPB to be called?
Hint: If you think the Royal Society for the Protection of Biodiversity is close to the mark and will inspire millions of people into action for nature, think again. ‘Biodiversity’ is not a term that’s well understood or used in common language to express the amazing and vital variety of life on our planet.
I’ve speed read and enjoyed many of the above comments with increasing interest and would like to comment as follows:
Please do remember that a brand is much more than just a name. The values associated with and readily identified by RSPB are recognised throughout the world. I’m sure the debate about the name has been repeated through the Society’s proud history and the robust defence and maintenance of the acronym has no doubt strengthened recognition.
Although I currently live in France – a Republic for over 200 years – I firmly believe that it would be folly to drop the ‘Royal’. Many Societies would clamour to be permitted to use the word ‘Royal’ and gain access to the gravitas and heritage with which it is associated internationally
I would endorse the view of Jason Peters (SEPTEMBER 3, 2012 – 10:57 AM) above – add a continually repeated strap-line ‘Natures Voice’ (or similar). Tesco’s wouldn’t dream of changing name but simply use the oft repeated ‘ every little helps’; ASDA’s ‘saving you money every day’ seems to get their point across. Thus if their focus changes or expands, as RSPB’s has since its genesis in the early 19c, the strap-line can be changed or tweaked accordingly.
That’s my tuppence worth.
(I have had nearly 40 years experience in International Marketing and normally charge for my time) 
I will of course continue to support the RSPB in whatever guise.
Gary – welcome and thank you for an excellent comment.
I’m not sure why you state: “none of the four words of RSPB is particularly appropriate” yet you suggest an alternative name of “BirdlifeUK”. That does not represent a step forward and you have countered your own argument. Also “biodiversity” would be quite lost on the majority of the public.
This exercise needs a branding expert/company to move forward, not, with all respect to the author, a bird expert.
What would the PR teams talk about (and charge for) if name and brand changes were off the agenda?
The RSPB should remain the RSPB. However as S Jakeman puts it everything is interconnected and we should have something, anything to work towards the interconnection of all the people involved and interested in nature and natural elements or our countryside and our towns in order to progress towards understanding and general acceptance of the interconnection of nature. But how to create an organisation that represents all with truly impartial management?
Change is hard, I hated the league’s logo (http://www.league.org.uk/) but it is more modern, and generically apealling than the old one
I am not really keen on any of these choices – can you add none of the above or a suggestion box please?
People don’t know what biodiversity is it is too techy as a term.
Can’t we have something with wildlife or something about the countryside in there?
Ralph – welcome! Suggest something then…
I like:
wildlife uk
wild countryside
or something a bit more abstract like
restore
but those are just my own preferences
Ralph – that’s what I asked for… thanks.
Being someone who must persuade and influence in my work, I know that one of the biggest things that influences people (all people, not just RSPB supporters) is continuity. Continuity builds trust.
RSPB has changed, and changed for the better and it will be a huge task to update our brand and our image to educate the general public about what RSPB really is. However, we have been around for such a long time, surely a change of the name would be a disservice, and might create an element of DIStrust in those who know us.
Is there a way around this, without just changing the “B” to biodiversity (which would not help us become more relevant or engaging)?
Felicity – welcome and thank you for your comment.
Interesting blog thanks. Has anyone suggested ‘Birdwatch!’? I’m not always sure about these multiple meanings but think this one works ok.
I am strongly of the opinion that we should keep the present name. Most people don’t stop to think what the letters stand for anyway, they just think of “The RSPB”. Any change from this would take years to become general knowledge and could be harmful – just think of the ridicule heaped on some commercial companies that have changed their names unnecessarily.
Although the RSPB should care for, and carefully document, all wildlife on its reserves, and the various species in an ecosystem are highly interconnected, I think the RSPB should continue to concentrate mainly on birds. In addition to being a life member of RSPB I am also a long-term member of Scottish Wildlife Trust and am pleased that birds are a main attraction of some of the SWT’s reserves. However, I think it would be better for the various wildlife NGOs to move forward in parallel, and cooperate wherever possible, rather than start to overlap in their efforts.
Roger – welcome to this blog and thank you for your comment.
However much the RSPB promote their ‘non-bird’ conservation efforts, I don’t think they can ever get away from the fact that birds are what the vast majority of their staff and members are interested in.
For that reason alone it would not be worth renaming – they would still be focussing on birds as that is where their staff expertise lie (from reserve wardens to planning advisors and on), and a sea-change in their ethos may lose them members – my feeling is that birds are the primary reason that most members join and while many will be open to finding out about other wildlife and helping to conserve them (it’s all joined up eventually), a name change to highlight a fundamental shift in approach would be too much too soon.
Ste – welcome and thank you for your comment.
Here’s a suggestion, why not keep the RSPB brand, but make it ‘B’ for ‘Birdlife’. This should keep the existing membership on-side whilst explicitly aligning ourselves with Birdlife International and its associated national groups.